Demolition of existing barn/workshop. Build replacement barn/workshop

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 December 2018 by Roy Curnow MA BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/X1165/D/18/3212817 Higher Court Farm, Edginswell Lane, Torquay TQ2 7JF  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Donavon McMurrugh against the decision of Torbay Council.  The application Ref P/2017/0887, dated 9 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 September 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of existing barn/workshop. Build replacement barn/workshop. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have not received that part of the application form showing the date of the application. I do, however, have the dated ownership certificate and I have used this date in my banner heading, above. Whilst this differs from the date of receipt shown on the Council’s decision notice, its use will not cause harm to any party. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on:  the character and appearance of the area, bearing in mind that it would be in the setting of Grade II listed buildings1 and including its effect on the landscape  the living conditions of the occupants of The Orchard and The Press Barn having particular regard to outlook. 1 Threshing Barn on northeast side of northeast farmyard at Edginswell Farmhouse Shippon/Stable on east side of northeast farmyard at Edginswell Farmhouse Linhay on south side of northeast farmyard at Edginswell Farmhouse Linhay on southwest side of southwest farmyard at Edginswell Farm Shippon/Stable on east side of southwest farmyard at Edginswell Farm Calf House at northwest end of southwest farmyard at Edginswell Farm Barn on northeast side of southwest farmyard at Edginswell Farm Cider House/Cartshed on south side of southwest farmyard at Edginswell Farm Appeal Decision APP/X1165/D/18/3212817 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 4. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, (the Act) requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects the setting of a listed building, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving that setting. 5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 193 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Substantial harm to a Grade II listed building should be exceptional. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use. 6. The designated heritage assets that are relevant to this case are found in the former northeast and southwest farmyards at Edginswell Farm, all of which are Grade II listed. Those in the northeast farmyard, which I shall refer to as ‘The Press Barns’, lie a short distance to the southeast of the site of the proposed building. Those in the southwest farmyard, which I shall refer to as ‘Edginswell Farm Barns’, lie further away on the opposite side of Edginswell Lane, beyond the dwelling at Higher Court Farm. The Press Barns have been converted to residential units in a very sympathetic manner. There is a large thatched roof across its ‘L’-shaped form and a former cider press is on public view in an open outbuilding alongside Edginswell Lane. Edginswell Farm Barns consist of an impressive range of cob and stone agricultural buildings. 7. Visually, they make a significant contribution to their surroundings. In my view, their significance derives from their agricultural heritage and traditional detailing and materials. 8. The Press Barns are close to the site of the proposed building and are readily seen from it. There is little doubt that the proposed building would lie within its setting. Although the Edginswell Farm Barns are further away, the site of the proposed building lies within their setting. 9. The building to be removed is relatively small and low, with a simple rustic form that is shown in the photographs that were submitted as part of the appeal. It lies on slightly lower ground than the site for the proposed building. Although not in a good state of repair, given the above, this building has a neutral effect on the setting of any of the listed buildings. 10. It has been suggested that the proposed building would be of the same scale as that which would be demolished. At my visit I was able to see that the proposed building shown on the annotated ‘Proposed Elevations’ drawing would have a considerably larger floor area and would be significantly higher, than Appeal Decision APP/X1165/D/18/3212817 3 the existing building. Therefore, I could not describe it as being a ‘like for like’ replacement. 11. Notwithstanding this, its footprint would in itself have little effect on the setting of any of the listed buildings. Although it would have an uncluttered design, it would not in my view greatly improve the impact on the setting of the listed buildings when assessed against the building to be replaced. Its height, both in terms of its eaves line and high very high pitched roof, allied to its position on higher land would result in it visually dominating The Press Barns. It would thus undermine that building’s primacy in the area and have a significantly harmful effect on its setting. 12. Given the distance between Edginswell Farm Barns and the site of the proposed building, together with the screening effect of intervening buildings at Higher Court Farm, the proposed building would only be glimpsed from them. Furthermore, the higher part of its roof would not be seen. In the light of these circumstances, the proposal would have no adverse effect on their settings. 13. The site of the proposed building is not prominent in the semi-rural landscape at the edge of the town. Notwithstanding its height, the proposed building would not be clearly seen from public vantage points. A partial view would be gained from the site’s access onto Edginswell Lane. However, views from here would be largely screened by intervening buildings. Similarly, a partial view would be likely to be gained from the car park at the business park to the east of the site. However, views from there would be effectively mitigated by reason of the change in levels and intervening vegetation. What would be seen of the building would not appear incongruous in the landscape. 14. Nevertheless, overall, on the basis of the evidence before me, I find the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area by failing to preserve the setting of The Press Barns - the grade II listed Threshing Barn, Shippon/Stable and Linhay. It would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the respective sections of the Act and would fail to accord with paragraph 193 of the Framework, which attaches great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. 15. For the same reasons the proposal would also not accord with the aims of Policy SS10 of the Torbay Local Plan 2010-2030 that seeks, amongst other things, to protect the settings of designated heritage assets. 16. That said, in the context of the significance of the heritage asset, I would calibrate the harm arising from the proposed development, in accordance with paragraphs 195 and 196 of the Framework, as less than substantial towards middle range of the scale. In these circumstances, the Framework requires the degree of harm to be balanced against the benefits the development may bring. 17. In respect of the benefits put forward here, as the materials stored externally on the site have very little effect on the setting of these listed buildings, their storage in the proposed building would not be a great benefit. I find similarly with regards to the use of appropriate materials in its construction. These, whether taken separately or cumulatively, would not outweigh the great weight I must attach harm to the settings of the grade II listed The Press Barns. Appeal Decision APP/X1165/D/18/3212817 4 Living Conditions 18. The proposed building would be sited close to the boundary with the lower part of the garden to The Orchard. Evergreen trees grow within the appeal site, and form a thick barrier between the two properties. Building operations in very close proximity to these trees would be likely to have an adverse effect on their roots, and would be likely to require the cutting back of their branches. Both would affect the manner in which the hedge might mitigate the impact of the building when seen from The Orchard. 19. Furthermore, I have no evidence to show that these trees are protected and that they could not be removed at any time. Therefore, their screening properties cannot be relied upon and I have to assess the effects of the proposed building on neighbours’ living conditions on this basis. The proposed building, given its siting very close to the boundary on the southwest side of The Orchard, allied to its height and scale, would dominate that property’s garden and have an overbearing effect when seen from it. It would, therefore, have a significant adverse effect on its occupants’ living conditions. 20. Notwithstanding the height of the proposed building and that the amenity area of The Press Barns it is on lower ground than it would be, the distance between the two would ensure that there would be little effect on its occupants by reason of a loss of outlook. 21. To conclude on this issue, although there would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupants of The Press Barn, this would not be the case with the occupants of The Orchard. The proposed building would dominate its rear garden and result in an unacceptable overbearing effect and severe loss of outlook for its occupants. The scheme would therefore be contrary to the terms of Policy DE3 of the Torbay Local Plan 2010-2030, which seeks to ensure that development proposals should not unduly impact upon the amenities of neighbours. Other Matters 22. I acknowledge the comments with regard to the Council’s handling of the planning application particularly delays in reaching its decision and comments received from the Council’s Officers over that period. However, I have determined the appeal on its planning merits. 23. I have taken account of the other sites and schemes that have been drawn to my attention2. However, although I do not have the full details of those cases before me, none of them lead me to reach a different conclusion on the main issues. 24. Whilst I sympathise with the reported security problems at the site, I am not convinced that the form of building proposed would be the only way to address them and this does not outweigh the harm I have identified. I find similarly with regards to the effects of the development at Mews Cottage on the electricity supply and the potential fire safety issues related to the thatched roof at The Press Barns. 2 Rock House, Edginswell Lane; Mews Cottages, Edginsswell Lane; Orchard Cottage, Edginswell Lane; P/2017/0443; P/2017/1213; P/2007/1743; P/2008/1682; P/2012/0996; P/2009/1345; P/2013/0403; P/2010/1370; and AT/2017/0072 Appeal Decision APP/X1165/D/18/3212817 5 Conclusion 25. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Roy Curnow INSPECTOR